05.BA260028 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
9993 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260028 – Mcleod Residence Variance Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicants /& Owners: Scott & Karen McLeod Request: Variances to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed lot width of 110’ where 145’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502 2) Proposed front (north) setback of 5’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502 Site Location: APN 211-74-118C @ 33315 N. 10th St. – 10th St. and Red Ridge Way, in the north Phoenix area Site Size: 75,559 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: None Background: 1. May 15, 2022: Per county records the lot was created by combining two parcels, 211-74-118A & 211-74-118B to become 211-74-118C during the sale of the parcel to the current owners. 2. February 4, 2025: Well permit issued for parcel. 3. July 27, 2025: Application for primary residential structure and accessory pole barn structure submitted under BLDR2505969 & BLDR2507773. 4. April 1, 2026: Subject variance requests submitted. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43/ Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Vacant Page 2 of 7 Variance Requests: 6. The applicant requests two variance relating to established easements along the north and south boundaries of the parcel to develop the parcel for a single-family residential home. 7. The Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) defines the front lot line as shortest lot dimension with street frontage. Access easements are a private street. Due to poor lot splitting practice with unregulated land division, this parcel’s southern boundary is the front lot line with substandard width. The dimension is 110’ failing to meet the 145’ minimum lot width requirement of the Rural-43 zoning district. While the site has a 336’+ dimension along 10th St., the south lot line is the front lot line by ordinance definition. 8. The lot has easements on both the northern and southern lot lines for access to parcels on the eastern side of the parcel thus making the property a corner through-lot with three frontages. Through lots are subject to ‘front’ yard setbacks of 40’ as measured from the street line (or from the edge of easements). A 20’ easement runs the northern length of the parcel. There currently exists a well pump house located 10’ from the easement edge creating a current situation of non-conformance. The owners desire to build a pole barn approximately 5’ from the easement edge thus are requesting a 5’ (or 25’ from actual lot line) northern ‘front’ setback where 40’ is required by per MCZO Section 502 – Front (ft.) – setback minimums. Proposed site plan Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 9. The parcel is an ‘L’ shaped parcel with a large wash running east / west though the center. The parcel slopes downhill from south to north with the portion of the parcel on the northern side of the wash being lower than the portion south of the wash. The easements that affect the parcel were created via land splitting practices prior to the applicant purchasing the property but are self-created in the line of title. Aerial photo of subject site Page 4 of 7 Aerial image & surrounding environs Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated March 2025) Page 5 of 7 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 10. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to south street line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Front Yard Setback (detached structures to north street line) 40-feet 5-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Street-Side Setback (residence to west lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Maximum Height 30-feet 30-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,560-sq. ft Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 110-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards Page 6 of 7 State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.” 11. Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. 12. Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance are applied. Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property. 13. Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 7 of 7 Findings: 14. The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self- imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the property without the variance. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 15. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: • The parcel is heavily impacted by the presence of a wash transversing the lot limiting placement of structures and encumbering the principal building envelope. • The lot was created via unregulated land division with unorthodox shape, three frontages, and substandard lot width as measured parallel to the front lot line. Easements for the three frontages are interior of the lot further encumbering the principal building envelope. 16. And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: a) Variance approval establishes a 110’’ minimum lot width as measured parallel to the south lot line for APN 211-74-118C. b) Variance approval establishes a 5’ north setback line as measured from the street line for APN 211-74-118C. Presented by: Andrew Lorentzen, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 page) Neighbor support documentation (2 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 2 approx. Generated April 23, 2026 9:31 AM BA260028 Application Name: Legal Description McLeod residence Applicant Case Address 5N 3E 9 Scott McLeod 33315 N 10TH ST Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:211-74-118C (907) 240-1200 PHOENIX, AZ 85085 Map scale 1:859 Supervisor District No. Setback variance for residential new construction.